Conversations at Home ‘Stirring Up Hatred’ Now a Criminal Offence in Scotland
lotuseaters.com
lotuseaters.com
Second, keep in mind that LotusEaters is ran by Carl Benjamin[1] -- and so it's most definitely not a balanced take.
Third, the gripe here is mainly that there's no "private conversation" exception for this bill. I personally think it's problematic even without these exceptions. If you read through it, it's riddled with "reasonable," "reasonable person," and so on.
Finally, important notice needs to be paid to section 4A, where it cites Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights of being the pallbearer for what's reasonable and what's not. Article 10 itself says:
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Thank you for catching that. The law was also covered by the more trusted BBC [1]. A quick skim did not find any conflicting information between the two reports, but please correct me if I missed something.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-56364...
But yes, another good example would be perjury.
> The common law offence of blasphemy is abolished
Yes, please clean out the dead (legal) code! Law debt is a scourge against democracy.
The attempt to "cleanse the land" of what they have newly labeled as "bigotry", "racism", etc. does have what strongly resembles religious fervor, a clear definition of sin, and a clear promise of a better world and the conditions for getting there.
And there are always those pesky skeptics who make it so difficult... if only everyone would just believe.
However ham-fisted this new law is, attempts to prevent:
> prejudice on the basis of age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or variations in sex characteristics (sometimes described as "intersex" physical or biological characteristics).
, that's to say things which you cannot choose (except religion), is a pretty major change from protecting the official state religion du jour - not just a straight swap.
Blasphemy laws weren't justified on the basis of protecting a religion, but to safeguard souls from being led astray into eternal damnation, or to stop the spread of harmful immoral activity. They were to serve the greater good, just like this law.
Excommunication was a perfectly good threat if the aim was genuinely to safeguard souls. The ulterior motive behind the escalated punishment and law, was the potential risk of allowing people to live their lives outside the church, or as part of another religion - an existential threat to the dominance of the Catholic church as an institution.
It was justified on that ground. That doesn't mean there was no ulterior motive.
But this doesn't respond to the main point I was trying to make - this new law is not just a "switch from one god to another".
It's a big change from protecting the official state religion du jour to protecting the official state morality do jour?
It isn't even about prejudice which will already be illegal for discrimination in hiring, etc. It's simply about saying things which might make other people feel "bad" feelings. Pretty similar to offending a religious person by saying their God is wrong. That stirs up hate too and it deeply hurts people.
Yes and I think I already explained how I believe that to be the case.
But to expand it to your example, how does an attempt to improve prejudiced actions against all people of faith, sexual orientation, etc. support a state institution? What is the ulterior motive and which power structure is benefitting from it? From what I can see - none. It's just a change in society's morality.
The problem is not that they're loud. The problem is that they're making laws pass, they write corporate training material and they try to make your boss fire you if you voice an opinion different from theirs. These are things that have consequences in real life.
The Bill subsequently gives police new powers of entry to a home where <...> there is “evidence” of an “offence under section 3” having been committed. This will allow police to enter a premises “by force if necessary”, “seiz[ing] and detain[ing] any materials” <...>
"""
I wonder if it opens up a whole new avenue of swatting tactics: report someone for hate speech so that the police would come and seize their Alexa.
Seems far-fetched, but not entirely impossible?
Apart from the fact that words like “hatred” and interpretations like “reasonable person” are vague and variable, I think it is really crossing a line to interfere in conversations people have privately, such as between parents and their children. This feels a lot like what we call indoctrination or thought control when countries like China do it. Scotland shouldn’t get a pass just because those seeking such restrictions are western leftist activists.
Some examples: if I want to protect my kid from getting propagandized by trans ideology that is pushed heavily at public schools these days, will that be considered “stirring up hatred”, just because I don’t want to subject my child to life changing medical procedures? Will pushing back on critical race theory be considered hateful? What about teaching children values like hard work, which some consider “white supremacist”?
These aren’t theoretical concerns. I’ve seen the mentality of banning “hate speech” taken to extremes in Canada already, where a father objecting to his child’s gender transition has no recourse, is not allowed to talk to press about the issue (to bring attention to this injustice), and is in jail for trying to get help and attention for his predicament (https://thefederalist.com/2021/03/26/canadian-father-jailed-...). It’s sad to see such illiberal laws corrupt otherwise free nations.
I doubt it was intentional, but you should know how hurtful it is to use “witch” in this manner. It’s an offensive use of the term and denigrates those who are pagans, Wiccans, and followers of the Earth Goddess. Please avoid such charged language; it’s not what HN is all about.
Thanks.
/sarc...?
People commenting have spoken about freedom, and related it to personal responsibility. I think this law is making that responsibility real. You spout hate and you can be held legally responsible, regardless of where you do it. If you have been reported, then obviously somebody who heard it didn't like it. Don't want to be reported, then think about who you are about to offend rather than just fire words out there ignorant of what pain they may cause.
Your (joke?) about witch hunts is a point in case... you are speaking to an open forum mostly in a country where witch hunts took place... There is a non zero chance that somebody in your audience is related to one of the people who got mixed up in the witch hunts... Joke for you, for them, maybe not so much.
I'm not saying don't use the term, it's in pretty common usage with little reference to its origins, but maybe we should start to think about the words we use, and how they may adversely impact people who hear them. In other words, take responsibility for what you say and be considerate of those who will hear your words.
The reality is that there are people out there who say things with the intent to create hate or to hurt people, they then claim that "I was misunderstood". That is not good enough and this law makes that very clear, You are responsible for what you say, if you can't speak without being misunderstood, then maybe you should do everybody a favour and keep your mouth closed.
But where do you draw the line? Is it not reasonable to assume that the intent will be understood when using and extremely common phrase?
Perhaps I misunderstood your intent.
If so, you should heed your own advice: “You are responsible for what you say, if you can't speak without being misunderstood, then maybe you should do everybody a favour and keep your mouth closed.”
Anything that forces you to think more about your words is a good thing?
Terrorist attacks for wrongspeech force me to think more about my words. Is that a good thing?
Obviously, the absence of a line is untenable.
Also, I would caution that desire for "freedom + responsibility for dealing with the the mess" vs being "told what to do and not having to deal with people who step out of line" is not distributed uniformly about the population.
This is almost a polar opposite of the American legal culture, which seems to prefer to be bound by exacting wording (and resulting loopholes).
I'm not trying to argue that either position is preferred, just that reading foreign laws through the eyes of your own legal system can often produce skewed results.
(My favourite example of this is where English law seems to provide much lesser sentences than US law - I think "death by dangerous driving" was the specific example I found. What actually happens is the in the US, you plea bargain to a lesser charge, and end up receiving a pretty comparable sentence to the English charge. The results end up very similar, but if you view the English law through US eyes it appears amazingly lenient.)
It seems likely that the test for a "reasonable person" could be easily abused with a motivated majority.
However that doesn't bother me as much as the virtually untestable "threatening, abusive or insulting" which is almost exclusively a personal interpretation. How is there any test or defence for this?
I certainly wouldn't have said so five years ago, but given the madness sweeping across the land, now who knows?
hate your in-laws ? Call the police on their “hate speech” during family dinner. Better yet, provide Alexa recording.
To enforce appropriate application of this law enable auto-detection and auto-reporting of hate speech to authorities by smart home devices. Fight racism and wrongthink with AI, call this progressive program “The Big Brother”.